Сделаем Америку снова великой! Trump - Russia megathread

[CID1990]

Comedy's one mistake in the last year was going to Congress to talk about and justify why there would be no charges against Clinton in the email thing. Doing that compelled him to return to Congress the week before the election. Now it compels him to do it over Trump. These are all ongoing investigations and if he had not gone to Congress in the summer (and weathered the inevitable "fix is in" cries) he would today be able to tell Congress to get stuffed and wait until the investigations are included. Comey made his bed, although Bill Clinton and the previous AG made things very difficult for him. I'm sure he was trying to protect the image of the bureau, but in hindsight it wasn't worth it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Comedy. I see what you did there.

Hah!

Autocorrect got me again


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

Comedy's one mistake in the last year was going to Congress to talk about and justify why there would be no charges against Clinton in the email thing. Doing that compelled him to return to Congress the week before the election. Now it compels him to do it over Trump. These are all ongoing investigations and if he had not gone to Congress in the summer (and weathered the inevitable "fix is in" cries) he would today be able to tell Congress to get stuffed and wait until the investigations are included. Comey made his bed, although Bill Clinton and the previous AG made things very difficult for him. I'm sure he was trying to protect the image of the bureau, but in hindsight it wasn't worth it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Comey had a press conference (and not a Congressional hearing) to announce that the investigation into Hillary's emails was OVER and they would not recommend charges.

Congress did call him to testify - but, his investigation was over at that point.

He did send a confidential memo a week before the election to Nunes about other emails they would be looking into. Nunes leaked the memo to the press.

[CID1990]

Comedy's one mistake in the last year was going to Congress to talk about and justify why there would be no charges against Clinton in the email thing. Doing that compelled him to return to Congress the week before the election. Now it compels him to do it over Trump. These are all ongoing investigations and if he had not gone to Congress in the summer (and weathered the inevitable "fix is in" cries) he would today be able to tell Congress to get stuffed and wait until the investigations are included. Comey made his bed, although Bill Clinton and the previous AG made things very difficult for him. I'm sure he was trying to protect the image of the bureau, but in hindsight it wasn't worth it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Comey had a press conference (and not a Congressional hearing) to announce that the investigation into Hillary's emails was OVER and they would not recommend charges.

Congress did call him to testify - but, his investigation was over at that point.

He did send a confidential memo a week before the election to Nunes about other emails they would be looking into. Nunes leaked the memo to the press.

Yep it was a press conference. The point is that he went public with it instead of leaving it to the AG. But his initial offering all but guaranteed that he had to come forward when new info came up. This also pretty much removed his option of declining this most recent hearing on the grounds of ongoing investigations.

Comey probably knew the consequences but came out anyway because he felt the backlash would be heavy if he didn't explain himself, and the tarmac meeting forced it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Manafort "played a very limited role" in the Trump campaign...

No dots to connect here whatsoever...

Deripaska became one of Russia's wealthiest men under Putin, buying assets abroad in ways widely perceived to benefit the Kremlin's interests. U.S. diplomatic cables from 2006 described him as "among the 2-3 oligarchs Putin turns to on a regular basis" and "a more-or-less permanent fixture on Putin's trips abroad." In response to questions about Manafort's consulting firm, a spokesman for Deripaska in 2008 — at least three years after they began working together — said Deripaska had never hired the firm. Another Deripaska spokesman in Moscow last week declined to answer AP's questions.

Manafort worked as Trump's unpaid campaign chairman last year from March until August, a period that included the Republican National Convention that nominated Trump in July. Trump asked Manafort to resign after AP revealed that he had orchestrated a covert Washington lobbying operation until 2014 on behalf of Ukraine's ruling pro-Russian political party.

The newly obtained business records link Manafort more directly to Putin's interests in the region. According to those records and people with direct knowledge of Manafort's work for Deripaska, Manafort made plans to open an office in Moscow, and at least some of his work in Ukraine was directed by Deripaska, not local political interests there. The Moscow office never opened.

Manafort has been a leading focus of the U.S. intelligence investigation of Trump's associates and Russia, according to a U.S. official. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the investigation are confidential. Meanwhile, federal criminal prosecutors became interested in Manafort's activities years ago as part of a broad investigation to recover stolen Ukraine assets after the ouster of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych there in early 2014. No U.S. criminal charges have ever been filed in the case.

FBI Director James Comey, in confirming to Congress the federal intelligence investigation this week, declined to say whether Manafort was a target. Manafort's name was mentioned 28 times during the hearing of the House intelligence committee, mostly about his work in Ukraine. No one mentioned Deripaska.

On Monday, Spicer had said Manafort "played a very limited role for a very limited amount of time" in the presidential campaign, even though he was Trump's campaign chairman. Spicer on Wednesday said further that Manafort was hired to oversee the campaign's delegate operation. "To be clear, he got the job done on the delegates," Spicer said.

Manafort and his associates remain in Trump's orbit. Manafort told a colleague this year that he continues to speak with Trump by telephone. Manafort's former business partner in eastern Europe, Rick Gates, has been seen inside the White House on a number of occasions, helped plan Trump's inauguration and now runs a nonprofit organization, America First Policies, to back the White House agenda.

Gates, whose name does not appear in the documents, told the AP that he joined Manafort's firm in 2006 and was aware Manafort had a relationship with Deripaska but was not aware of the work described in the memos. Gates said his work was focused on domestic U.S. lobbying and political consulting in Ukraine at the time. He said he stopped working for Manafort's firm in March 2016 when he joined Trump's presidential campaign.

Manafort told Deripaska in 2005 that he was pushing policies as part of his work in Ukraine "at the highest levels of the U.S. government — the White House, Capitol Hill and the State Department," according to the documents. He also said he had hired a "leading international law firm with close ties to President Bush to support our client's interests," but he did not identify the firm. Manafort also said he was employing unidentified legal experts for the effort at leading universities and think tanks, including Duke University, New York University and the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Manafort did not disclose details about the lobbying work to the Justice Department during the period the contract was in place.

Under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, people who lobby in the U.S. on behalf of foreign political leaders or political parties must provide detailed reports about their actions to the department. Willfully failing to register is a felony and can result in up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000, though the government rarely files criminal charges. "I don't know if he violated the Foreign Agent Registration Act," Sen. Graham said, "but it's something I think we all need to know more about."

https://www.apnews.com/122ae0b5848345fa ... _medium=AP

[CID1990]

I figured that it was probably Manafort they were looking at.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

I don't think it's limited to Manafort. I bet Roger Stone and Carter Page go down as well.

Big question remains if they can link anything directly to Trump.

[Ivytalk]

I don't think it's limited to Manafort. I bet Roger Stone and Carter Page go down as well.

Big question remains if they can link anything directly to Trump.

The Three Sleazes: Moe Manafort, Larry Stone, and Shemp Page.

[Silenoz]

I don't think it's limited to Manafort. I bet Roger Stone and Carter Page go down as well.

Big question remains if they can link anything directly to Trump.

Well that would be just such a shame

[Grizalltheway]

I don't think it's limited to Manafort. I bet Roger Stone and Carter Page go down as well.

Big question remains if they can link anything directly to Trump.

Well that would be just such a shame

I bet even Ted Cruz thinks that guy is a slimeball. JFC.

[Ibanez]

Well that would be just such a shame

I bet even Ted Cruz thinks that guy is a slimeball. JFC.

I'm not sure that's a bad thing.


Meanwhile, good avatar. I'm waiting for someone to come out and recall that man with his (skin)flute.

[CID1990]

There's a shitload of smoke around two issues-
Trump campaign hacks coordinating with Wikileaks or the Russians

and

Someone with unmasking authority playing politics with the IC - I'm betting it was Obama's natsec advisor, given that she was one of the very few with that authority


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

Seems there's a lot more smoke for your first one considering there is currently a multi-agency investigation into it.

And, I don't believe anyone has the power to unmask without the authority of the agency that collected the information. A President or Natsec advisor can ask for someone's identity to be unmasked - but, it's up to the investigative agency whether to reveal it or not. Perhaps someone in the White House pressured names to be unmasked against the NSA's wishes. And, that would certainly be a huge story.... but, I don't see any evidence for that. What am I missing?

What seems to have happened is that the NSA collected the communications between Trump officials and Russia (or others). The FBI asked the NSA to unmask the individuals they believed pertinent to their investigation. At that point, quite a few people at FBI have access to the "unmasked" names.

I don't get your conclusion that it was necessary Susan Rice. Seems like a pretty big jump to me. But, we'll see.

[Skjellyfetti]

Also, some reports that the FBI has enough to Flynn and that he has flipped on Trump.

Manafort, Stone, and Page have all come out of the woodwork - but, Flynn is the only one that has been pretty silent through all of this.

[Ibanez]

Also, some reports that the FBI has enough to Flynn and that he has flipped on Trump.

Manafort, Stone, and Page have all come out of the woodwork - but, Flynn is the only one that has been pretty silent through all of this.

Link? I'm not calling you out, i'm curious as to the story. I haven't heard or read that one yet.


Then again, the MSM is flush with stories about Trump so it's easy for something to get buried.

[CID1990]

Seems there's a lot more smoke for your first one considering there is currently a multi-agency investigation into it.

And, I don't believe anyone has the power to unmask without the authority of the agency that collected the information. A President or Natsec advisor can ask for someone's identity to be unmasked - but, it's up to the investigative agency whether to reveal it or not. Perhaps someone in the White House pressured names to be unmasked against the NSA's wishes. And, that would certainly be a huge story.... but, I don't see any evidence for that. What am I missing?

What seems to have happened is that the NSA collected the communications between Trump officials and Russia (or others). The FBI asked the NSA to unmask the individuals they believed pertinent to their investigation. At that point, quite a few people at FBI have access to the "unmasked" names.

I don't get your conclusion that it was necessary Susan Rice. Seems like a pretty big jump to me. But, we'll see.

That was two pretty long posts

Too bad they were wrong-

Unmasking authority rests with the executive and certain appointees

Sounds like you're really willing to dissect administrations not associated with Obama

News flash: The Obama admin was as crooked and unethical as any before it, and even the current one

I'm happy with the partisan lack of ethics on the part of the Obama admin.. because it has exposed the lack of ethics on the part of Trump surrogates, and maybe Trump himself

But your defensiveness on the part of The One is duly noted

I'll leave you with this- rather than a leap, it is actually the most likely scenario that Susan Rice unmasked Flynn. It actually happened, so the "who" only comes down to 5or 6 people

You tell me which one other than Susan Rice has already demonstrated a willingness to be publicly unethical



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Seems there's a lot more smoke for your first one considering there is currently a multi-agency investigation into it.

And, I don't believe anyone has the power to unmask without the authority of the agency that collected the information. A President or Natsec advisor can ask for someone's identity to be unmasked - but, it's up to the investigative agency whether to reveal it or not. Perhaps someone in the White House pressured names to be unmasked against the NSA's wishes. And, that would certainly be a huge story.... but, I don't see any evidence for that. What am I missing?

What seems to have happened is that the NSA collected the communications between Trump officials and Russia (or others). The FBI asked the NSA to unmask the individuals they believed pertinent to their investigation. At that point, quite a few people at FBI have access to the "unmasked" names.

I don't get your conclusion that it was necessary Susan Rice. Seems like a pretty big jump to me. But, we'll see.

That was two pretty long posts

Too bad they were wrong-

Unmasking authority rests with the executive and certain appointees

Sounds like you're really willing to dissect administrations not associated with Obama

News flash: The Obama admin was as crooked and unethical as any before it, and even the current one

I'm happy with the partisan lack of ethics on the part of the Obama admin.. because it has exposed the lack of ethics on the part of Trump surrogates, and maybe Trump himself

But your defensiveness on the part of The One is duly noted

I'll leave you with this- rather than a leap, it is actually the most likely scenario that Susan Rice unmasked Flynn. It actually happened, so the "who" only comes down to 5or 6 people

You tell me which one other than Susan Rice has already demonstrated a willingness to be publicly unethical



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If we're talking about admin officials in general-Holder and Lynch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

That was two pretty long posts

Too bad they were wrong-

Unmasking authority rests with the executive and certain appointees

Sounds like you're really willing to dissect administrations not associated with Obama

News flash: The Obama admin was as crooked and unethical as any before it, and even the current one

I'm happy with the partisan lack of ethics on the part of the Obama admin.. because it has exposed the lack of ethics on the part of Trump surrogates, and maybe Trump himself

But your defensiveness on the part of The One is duly noted

I'll leave you with this- rather than a leap, it is actually the most likely scenario that Susan Rice unmasked Flynn. It actually happened, so the "who" only comes down to 5or 6 people

You tell me which one other than Susan Rice has already demonstrated a willingness to be publicly unethical



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If we're talking about admin officials in general-Holder and Lynch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Holder- definitely

But he wasn't there.

Lynch - maybe. But on CI issues she reports through the NSC and Rice was well known for being a micromanager (as were many of Obama's cabinet)

Remember all the media outlets talking back a couple months ago about the Obama admin "scrambling" to preserve "evidence" between the election and the inauguration?

Now they're quiet about that because they now realize that they were unwittingly describing some inappropriate activities.

Personally I see this as a very similar situation to the DNC hacking - the vehicle was as corrupt and wrong as the subject turned out to be, and it could take them both down.

This government (and the whole country by extension) needs an ethics lesson and we might be on the verge of getting it

Not that anyone will listen

[Skjellyfetti]

Again, perhaps you're right that an Obama administration official forced a name to be unmasked.

I don't believe that to be the case based on Comey's testimony... but, perhaps he's lying or being untruthful.

If that's the case - whoever agreed to have it unmasked and whoever ordered it unmasked deserve jail.

I'm not defending it. Just saying I haven't seen nearly as much smoke to this as you seem to have.

And, the testimony directly contradicts your claim of only 5 or 6 people.

GOWDY: What does the term mask mean in the concept of FISA and other surveillance programs?

COMEY: As Director Rogers explained, it's our practice, approved by the FISA court, of removing the names of U.S. persons to protect their privacy and their identity unless it hits certain exceptions. So masking means, as Mike Rogers said -- I'll often see a intelligence report from NSA that will say U.S. person number one, U.S. person number two, U.S. person number three and there's no further identification on the document.

GOWDY: Admiral Rogers said there are 20 people within the NSA that are part of the unmasking process. How many people within the FBI are part of the unmasking process?

COMEY: I don't know for sure. As I sit here, surely more, given the nature the FBI's work. We come into contact with U.S. persons a whole lot more than the NSA does because we may be conducting -- we only conduct our operations in the United States to collect electronic surveillance -- to conduct electronic surveillance, so I don't -- I can find out the exact number, I don't know it as I sit here.

The FBI can ask the NSA to unmask someone if it is pertinent to their investigation with a FISA warrant.

Occam's razor says that is what occurred here. Perhaps that is wrong, but without any other evidence - that is most likely the case. No?

I'm not seeing where your leap is that Susan Rice forced the NSA to unmask anyone.

[CID1990]

Again, perhaps you're right that an Obama administration official forced a name to be unmasked.

I don't believe that to be the case based on Comey's testimony... but, perhaps he's lying or being untruthful.

If that's the case - whoever agreed to have it unmasked and whoever ordered it unmasked deserves jail.

I'm not defending it. Just saying I haven't seen nearly as much smoke to this as you seem to have.

And, the testimony directly contradicts your claim of only 5 or 6 people.

GOWDY: What does the term mask mean in the concept of FISA and other surveillance programs?

COMEY: As Director Rogers explained, it's our practice, approved by the FISA court, of removing the names of U.S. persons to protect their privacy and their identity unless it hits certain exceptions. So masking means, as Mike Rogers said -- I'll often see a intelligence report from NSA that will say U.S. person number one, U.S. person number two, U.S. person number three and there's no further identification on the document.

GOWDY: Admiral Rogers said there are 20 people within the NSA that are part of the unmasking process. How many people within the FBI are part of the unmasking process?

COMEY: I don't know for sure. As I sit here, surely more, given the nature the FBI's work. We come into contact with U.S. persons a whole lot more than the NSA does because we may be conducting -- we only conduct our operations in the United States to collect electronic surveillance -- to conduct electronic surveillance, so I don't -- I can find out the exact number, I don't know it as I sit here.

The FBI can ask the NSA to unmask someone if it is pertinent to their investigation.

Occam's razor says that is what occurred here. Perhaps that is wrong, but without any other evidence - that is most likely the case. No?

I'm not seeing where your leap is that Susan Rice forced the NSA to unmask anyone.

They are talking about who can actually physically do it. In the case of something as sensitive as this, and knowing very intimately how the previous admin functioned (you didn't wipe your ass without say so.... even the most mundane, routine tasks were micromanaged by the previous admin) it would have taken a cabinet level type to ok it-

Susan Rice was the most likely one - though it could have been someone else. And the leaks after that could have come from literally anywhere (which is when we find out who unmasked Flynn and others, that will be the claim- that they unmasked the names but did not leak them.... sort of like I put the T-bone steak on the kitchen floor but I didn't encourage the dog to eat it)

[Skjellyfetti]

They're talking about people with unmasking authority.

And, Comey, as part of his investigation couldn't get the NSA to unmask a name with a FISA court order? It would have to come as an order from the White House? Perhaps you're right on that... but, I haven't seen anything to indicate it.

And, if true, that is simply a huge fucking flaw in the system if you're dealing with an investigation of a campaign colluding with a foreign power. If the only way for the FBI to have the name unmasked as part of their investigation was to have someone at the White House request it - then, that's what had to be done.

I really don't think that's the case. And, again, it's far more likely the FBI coordinated with the NSA as part of their investigation, imo. But, I guess we'll just see where this goes.

[CID1990]

They're talking about people with unmasking authority.

And, Comey, as part of his investigation couldn't get the NSA to unmask a name with a FISA court order? It would have to come as an order from the White House? Perhaps you're right on that... but, I haven't seen anything to indicate it.

And, if true, that is simply a huge **** flaw in the system if you're dealing with an investigation of a campaign colluding with a foreign power. If the only way for the FBI to have the name unmasked as part of their investigation was to have someone at the White House request it - then, that's what had to be done.

I really don't think that's the case. And, again, it's far more likely the FBI coordinated with the NSA as part of their investigation, imo. But, I guess we'll just see where this goes.

I know what they're talking about there, Vox.

I'm telling you that it came from a cabinet member -

I have the authority to revoke the Saudi King's visa but I'm not doing it without Tillerson's sign off. Do you understand now or do I need to put up a pie chart?

[Skjellyfetti]

It's possible it came from a cabinet member. But, it would have had to be approved by the FBI or NSA as relevant to the investigation, no?

If the White House forced the NSA to unmask someone's name, against their wishes or against standard procedures... then it is certainly a scandal. But, I'm not seeing any smoke here. Are you?

If the NSA only unmasked names relevant to the FBI investigation according to standard procedures... what is the scandal?

COMEY: I think other elements of the government that are consumers of our products can ask the collectors to unmask. The unmasking resides with those who collected the information.

And so if Mike Rogers's folks collected something and they sent it to me in a report and it says U.S. person number one and it's important for the FBI to know who that is, our request will go back to them. The White House can make similar requests of the FBI or of NSA but they can't on their -- they don't own their own collect and so they can't on their own unmask. I got that about right? ROGERS: No, that's correct.

COMEY: Yeah.

[CID1990]

It's possible it came from a cabinet member. But, it would have had to be approved by the FBI or NSA as relevant to the investigation, no?

If the White House forced the NSA to unmask someone's name, against their wishes or against standard procedures... then it is certainly a scandal. But, I'm not seeing any smoke here. Are you?

If the NSA only unmasked names relevant to the FBI investigation according to standard procedures... what is the scandal?

COMEY: I think other elements of the government that are consumers of our products can ask the collectors to unmask. The unmasking resides with those who collected the information.

And so if Mike Rogers's folks collected something and they sent it to me in a report and it says U.S. person number one and it's important for the FBI to know who that is, our request will go back to them. The White House can make similar requests of the FBI or of NSA but they can't on their -- they don't own their own collect and so they can't on their own unmask. I got that about right? ROGERS: No, that's correct.

COMEY: Yeah.

IF the FBI's or NSA's intercepts of the Russian AMB's communications were part of an investigation into the Trump campaign, then there isn't one- but that's not the scandal I'm implying. I was correcting your reading of how things are supposed to work in theory, versus how they work in reality

Flynn was looked at AFTER the fact of his conversations with the Russian AMB - and at the time, there was no (public) talk of an investigation into Trump campaign collusion with the leaked hacking data. It was about whether or not an incoming administration member was talking about sanctions before he had the authority to. Now, it is being implied that Flynn's name was revealed as a part of the FBI investigation. The timing doesn't work- what does work is somebody using routine monitoring of a Russian official's communications as a fishing expedition, and that doesn't happen without bending (at best) the rules

And then there's the actual leak.

[HI54UNI]

Also, some reports that the FBI has enough to Flynn and that he has flipped on Trump.

Manafort, Stone, and Page have all come out of the woodwork - but, Flynn is the only one that has been pretty silent through all of this.

Link? I'm not calling you out, i'm curious as to the story. I haven't heard or read that one yet.


Then again, the MSM is flush with stories about Trump so it's easy for something to get buried.

I googled this last night and saw the story was based on a CNN analyst's own interpretation so I was a little skeptical. Now she's walking it back. Fake news from CNN! Shocking!

[SDHornet]

They're talking about people with unmasking authority.

And, Comey, as part of his investigation couldn't get the NSA to unmask a name with a FISA court order? It would have to come as an order from the White House? Perhaps you're right on that... but, I haven't seen anything to indicate it.

And, if true, that is simply a huge **** flaw in the system if you're dealing with an investigation of a campaign colluding with a foreign power. If the only way for the FBI to have the name unmasked as part of their investigation was to have someone at the White House request it - then, that's what had to be done.

I really don't think that's the case. And, again, it's far more likely the FBI coordinated with the NSA as part of their investigation, imo. But, I guess we'll just see where this goes.

I know what they're talking about there, Vox.

I'm telling you that it came from a cabinet member -

I have the authority to revoke the Saudi King's visa but I'm not doing it without Tillerson's sign off. Do you understand now or do I need to put up a pie chart?